PDA

View Full Version : Brady Bunch's latest gun grabbing ideas



Bob Gutermuth
01-09-2009, 10:13 AM
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/politics/obama-transition-memo.pdf

M Remington
01-09-2009, 07:34 PM
The bulk of these seem perfect to me.

The only thing I would object to is the repeal of immunity of firearm manufacturers against lawsuits and the monitoring of gun transfers.

We need some common-sense gun laws. Maybe Obama will bring those to the U.S.

Bob Gutermuth
01-09-2009, 08:20 PM
The only change we need in American gun laws to keep crooks from getting/using guns is to look up the criminals until they are too old to commit crimes.

What part of"shall not be infringed " do the Bradys of America not understand?

toddh
01-12-2009, 04:24 PM
We need some common-sense gun laws.

Please define what you consider "common-sense" gun laws and why the laws we currently have are not.

sprintwrench75
01-13-2009, 06:59 PM
The bulk of these seem perfect to me.

The only thing I would object to is the repeal of immunity of firearm manufacturers against lawsuits and the monitoring of gun transfers.

We need some common-sense gun laws. Maybe Obama will bring those to the U.S.

The only thing Obama and Brady will bring is no guns. So I ask when the goverment disarms you and says its common sense. Think this scenario. The big bad boogie man kicks in your door robs you and your family at gun point. Will you still think this seems perfect to me.I doubt you will. Make no mistake if you give an inch they will take a mile.No more gun laws. Including Virginia And North Carolina.

M Remington
01-14-2009, 07:12 PM
Come on, you really think that Obama and the Brady Bill mean no guns???

K G
01-14-2009, 07:58 PM
Come on, you really think that Obama and the Brady Bill mean no guns???

Do YOU think the Obama administration is going to support gun ownership? Seriously?

kg

toddh
01-14-2009, 08:19 PM
You didn't answer my question, Remi

Please tell me what "common-sense" law would be and why the ones currently have are not?

M Remington
01-14-2009, 09:22 PM
You didn't answer my question, Remi

Please tell me what "common-sense" law would be and why the ones currently have are not?


Sorry, missed that question.

Common-sense gun laws do the following:

1. Prohibit people other than the military or police organizations from specific types of guns.
2. Prohibit people from purchasing certain types of ammunition (i.e. "cop killers").
3. Have a rigorous background check system (and I don't care how long the information is retained).

That's about it to me.

M Remington
01-14-2009, 09:24 PM
Do YOU think the Obama administration is going to support gun ownership? Seriously?

kg

I don't think they are going to discourage gun ownership. What did "W" do to support gun ownership?

Gun_Dog2002
01-14-2009, 09:33 PM
Sorry, missed that question.

Common-sense gun laws do the following:

1. Prohibit people other than the military or police organizations from specific types of guns.
2. Prohibit people from purchasing certain types of ammunition (i.e. "cop killers").
3. Have a rigorous background check system (and I don't care how long the information is retained).

That's about it to me.

1. Why? A gun is a gun. A single shot 22 can kill if you want it to.
2. Again, why? Any bullet can kill if you want it to.
3. I don't care how hard you look, a law abiding citizen will be the only people succumbing to this background check.

We have enough laws on the books now to prevent gun violence. In fact, you may not know this, but murder is against the law. So use the existing laws to prosecute criminals, focus on criminals, and target criminals. So far all these laws target law abiding people and do nothing to stop criminals from committing crime.

/paul

tpaschal30
01-15-2009, 08:43 AM
Sorry, missed that question.

Common-sense gun laws do the following:

1. Prohibit people other than the military or police organizations from specific types of guns.
2. Prohibit people from purchasing certain types of ammunition (i.e. "cop killers").
3. Have a rigorous background check system (and I don't care how long the information is retained).

That's about it to me.

Wonder how folks would feel if the progun folks renamed "cop killer bullets" murderer and rapist killers!

Bob Gutermuth
01-15-2009, 10:07 AM
The definition of the so called 'cop killer bullets' in Lib speak means any round capable of defeating soft body armour. That means, in addition to the specially designed rounds that were made to do just that, almost any center fire rifle round. So those of you who use 30-06 WW 150gr Silvertips for white tailed deer better look for another kind of ammo.

W didn't sign any anti gun legislation, and as a positive thing, he appointed Justices Roberts and alito who were on the majority side of the Heller decision.

zeus3925
01-15-2009, 10:41 AM
First I don't think this is an issue about Liberals or Conservatives as it is a Urban vs. Rural. It is true that most of the politicians that are originating gun control tend to to be somewhat "liberal", most of them are coming from Urban constituencies where the impact of firearm in the communities have a very different reality than in a rural setting. Read the preambles of the current house bill HR45 as an insight in to that mind set.

Politicians tend to reflect the viewpoints of their constituencies first. If he is writing anti- gun legislation, then he perceives that is what his constituents want. If he doesn't, he won't be back after the next election You can pillory the man, but how do you get at those constituents?

I agree the gun is not the problem. It is the idiot behind the gun. We are doing a lot to infect our youth with the picture that violence is the way we solve conflict. Hollywood has canonized St. John Wayne. When was the last time you saw an American film where someone was NOT wasted away with a fire arm? I consider the movie "Pulp Fiction" to be a work of gun pornography.

However, I am as aware as you are that any effort that gets in the way of Hollywood of producing this schlock will get howls about First Amendment rights-- and they will make the political contributions required to fight back.

I can continue on more about Hollywood but I'll let you share your thoughts first.

dixidawg
01-15-2009, 10:42 AM
And those that howl the loudest about the 1st amendment are the first to trash the 2nd amendment....

Bob Gutermuth
01-15-2009, 10:45 AM
I grew up watching horse operas, cop shows and WWII shows like Combat on the boob tube. As a kid I used to play army or cops and robbers quite a bit, and in those days we had an arsenal of firearms(toy)to use in rubbing out the bad guys. Even the cartoons were full of fantasy violence(ever watch Elmer Fudd go hunting?). I think my parents spent a small fortune buying me paper caps to keep shooting in various games we played. But the group of kids I hung out with(I was born in 1951) and I knew that this was all make believe, none of my pals ever got arrested for shooting up a bank or anything even remotely serious. My dad began teaching me to shoot a real rifle at 5 and I have hunted all my life. The difference was and is that my parents and most others, made sure we knew the difference between watching Roy Rodgers shoot a crook on TV and the real world.


I still watch John Wayne every time one of his movies is on the tube, and most of Eastwoods as well. Hell I was a cop for 25 yrs and never shot anyone other than the paper man at the range.

dixidawg
01-15-2009, 10:55 AM
Absolutely! Not to mention every household had guns and kids were smart enough to know they shouldn't mess with them unless Dad gave you the OK.

Gun_Dog2002
01-15-2009, 11:02 AM
Ya but back then, parents could discipline their children. I knew growing up not to talk back to an adult. I showed respect or I was in big trouble. Today the same mindset that wants to ban guns, also has tied the hands of parents and given all the power to children. Remember the thread where the kid broke into the house and was having sex with the daughter? Where was the focus of all that? Yep, on the dad instead of the little punk...

/Paul

zeus3925
01-15-2009, 11:38 AM
I grew up watching horse operas, cop shows and WWII shows like Combat on the boob tube. As a kid I used to play army or cops and robbers quite a bit, and in those days we had an arsenal of firearms(toy)to use in rubbing out the bad guys. Even the cartoons were full of fantasy violence(ever watch Elmer Fudd go hunting?). I think my parents spent a small fortune buying me paper caps to keep shooting in various games we played. But the group of kids I hung out with(I was born in 1951) and I knew that this was all make believe, none of my pals ever got arrested for shooting up a bank or anything even remotely serious. My dad began teaching me to shoot a real rifle at 5 and I have hunted all my life. The difference was and is that my parents and most others, made sure we knew the difference between watching Roy Rodgers shoot a crook on TV and the real world.

I did the same thing too when I was a kid, Bob. We had the benefit of good parents the taught us right from wrong and were there to step in when we didn't get the message. But if you had contact with juveniles, and as a cop I am sure you did, there were those kids that just don't sort out the fundamentals, especially those with fetal alcohol syndrome. And if all adults could have figured it out you would have had a different vocation.

Most of the violence was clean and mostly neutral. Roy shot the gun out of the hand but did not wantonly and callously blow people away. Nor did he hire a clean up man like Travolta did in Pulp Fiction.

We had a kid and his buddy aged 11 and 10 respectively in our county that waited behind the couch one night and blew mom away with a 12 ga. shotgun and a .22 as she emerged from the garage. The issue: Mom wouldn't give him his allowance money. I don't think they got the idea from a note on the refrigerator.

Ther are many rivers in this mindset. Hollywood is just one.

duckheads
01-15-2009, 01:51 PM
you can't legislate the stupidity out of people nor can you pass any laws that will give anyone common sense. no matter what laws are passed you can't protect people from themselves! I don't understand why some people think more laws are going to fix the problem of urban violence. chicago has some of the most stringent guns laws in the country and what has it done for them? what additional "common sense" guns laws can they pass that will curtail their gun violence and murder problem? let's see it is already illegal to possess a gun in chicago yet there is still a problem. oh, I know it's indiana's fault. people need to pull their heads out of the sand and get a clue. criminal don't care about "common sense" gun laws!

toddh
01-15-2009, 06:01 PM
Sorry, missed that question.

Common-sense gun laws do the following:

1. Prohibit people other than the military or police organizations from specific types of guns.
2. Prohibit people from purchasing certain types of ammunition (i.e. "cop killers").
3. Have a rigorous background check system (and I don't care how long the information is retained).

That's about it to me.

I expected so much more than the standard party line. Guess I shouldn't be so disappointed though...it's always the same.

What you and your fellow liberals fail to acknowledgeis that we already have laws pertaining to just these things.

Fact: It is illegal for most law-abiding citizens to own fully-automatic weapons or "destructive devices". You need a special license to own such a weapon. How many licensed owners of fully-automatic weapons have committed murder?

Oh, but what about those awful "assault" weapons? Tell me what the difference is, besides cosmetic features, between an "assault" weapon and my father's Browning semi-automatic 30-06 rifle he uses for deer hunting? I'm sure you know, the Browning semi-automatic is based off the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) originally designed for the military?

Fact: It is illegal for the law-abiding citizen to buy "armor piercing" bullets. Armor piercing purchase is restricted to law enforcement and the military.

Cop-killer bullets are a myth. It's a made-up name born from media hype and nurtured by unrealistic Hollywood portrayals and the deliberately misleading claims of the anti-gun lobby. It's the name given to teflon covered bullets that supposedly have better penetration than standard bullets. In reality, the teflon is an outer coating for the brass penetrator and usually peels off during its trajectory through the air.

Also, as already mentioned, almost every common hunting rifle cartridge can pierce body armor. I own several guns of different calibers that could penetrate body armor. I've never felt the need to go and try and test them though.

Fact: Dealers are already required to perform background checks on law-abiding citizens that wish to purchase a gun. A citizen may be denied purchase. A purchase may also be delayed while the ATF performs a more comprehensive background check.


If you didn't notice, there's a key phrase in each of the paragraphs above - "law-abiding". I don't care how many laws you pass. It won't make a bit of difference to the criminals. But that's something else you and your ilk choose to ignore.

Goose
01-15-2009, 07:27 PM
It's so simple. Here's a common sense gun law our country should try...

If you commit a crime with a gun you're executed.

If don't care if you're robbing a bank, holding up your neighbor or stealing a pack of juicy fruit at the 7-11. And I don't care if you even fire the gun. It doesn't matter. Do it with a gun and you're done. Executed.

The gun grabbers in the country are packed with cowards. They'd rather blame the gun and let the criminal go free. Execute the criminal and the problem goes away.

zeus3925
01-15-2009, 08:52 PM
It's so simple. Here's a common sense gun law our country should try...

If you commit a crime with a gun you're executed.

If don't care if you're robbing a bank, holding up your neighbor or stealing a pack of juicy fruit at the 7-11. And I don't care if you even fire the gun. It doesn't matter. Do it with a gun and you're done. Executed.

The gun grabbers in the country are packed with cowards. They'd rather blame the gun and let the criminal go free. Execute the criminal and the problem goes away.

I can't say I disagree with you, Goose. But, that's also little like locking the barn after the horse is gone. Now you got at least two dead people.

We also have to get in front of this problem. Whether, it is tuning back on media violence, doing something to reduce the number of fatherless kids, getting in front of the drug war, or a mandatory stint in an ROTC program where proper use of firearms is taught. We got to do more than we are doing to reduce the gun violence.

I don't know all the answers, but we must do something more in addition to "out of my cold dead hands" or we are going to be fighting these battles forever. Our numbers in the hunting ranks are dwindling and the population has become mainly suburban and urban. Unless we get our skulls together we are eventually going loose this one, NRA or not.

duckheads
01-16-2009, 09:34 AM
how about getting in front of it by arresting the criminals, the gang bangers, the drug dealers, and keeping there butts in prison. unfortunately our criminals justice system has a revolving door. the police arrest them and the jugdes let them out. i do not know the stats, but by reading our local paper the worst crimes are committed by repeat offenders. how about getting in front of it by focusing on the criminal instead of the tool they use to commit the crime. look at england they out law guns and now people are using knives to commit crimes. now they want to outlaw knives. give my a break. what are they going to do tell people they can't have butter knives in their kitchen.

none of you that are pro gun control have answered a simple question about the city of chicago. it is illegal to have any kind of gun in the city of chicago yet they still have a huge problem. what additional "common sense" gun laws can be passed that will stop the gun violence and murder problems they have? anyone? anyone? bueller?

stop focusing on the tools and focus on the criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

zeus3925
01-16-2009, 10:25 AM
By the way, how many of you have written to your U.S. Rep. on this one?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

If you hit the link click on the blue text in the opening page and it will pop up the full text of the bill

M Remington
01-16-2009, 07:40 PM
I don't have a problem with this law. I don't intend on committing any gun crimes.

Aren't you conservatives the ones who don't have a problem with the warrantless wiretaps because you're not committing any crimes? If you don't plan on committing gun crimes, why do you worry about licensing?

Hoosier
01-16-2009, 07:45 PM
I don't have a problem with this law. I don't intend on committing any gun crimes.

Aren't you conservatives the ones who don't have a problem with the warrantless wiretaps because you're not committing any crimes? If you don't plan on committing gun crimes, why do you worry about licensing?

Licensing is the first step in taking them away. They want to know what guns law abiding citizens have for the purpose of taking them

Gun_Dog2002
01-16-2009, 08:21 PM
I don't have a problem with this law. I don't intend on committing any gun crimes.

Aren't you conservatives the ones who don't have a problem with the warrantless wiretaps because you're not committing any crimes? If you don't plan on committing gun crimes, why do you worry about licensing?

Be hard to commit gun crimes after they take them away....

/Paul

toddh
01-16-2009, 08:45 PM
I don't have a problem with this law. I don't intend on committing any gun crimes.

Aren't you conservatives the ones who don't have a problem with the warrantless wiretaps because you're not committing any crimes? If you don't plan on committing gun crimes, why do you worry about licensing?

You obviously haven't read the whole law. It's much, much more than licensing.

M Remington
01-16-2009, 11:10 PM
You guys are the NRA's dream. They keep saying "they're going to take your guns away," and you guys keep giving money.

Obama has shown no interest in ending traditional gun ownership.

tpaschal30
01-17-2009, 07:02 AM
You guys are the NRA's dream. They keep saying "they're going to take your guns away," and you guys keep giving money.

Obama has shown no interest in ending traditional gun ownership.


The 2nd is not about traditions, target shooting, or hunting.

YardleyLabs
01-17-2009, 08:58 AM
After reading the link to the Brady proposals, I find I agree with most and disagree strongly with many. I think the challenge to say which are "common sense" and which are nonsense is a fair one and I've summarized my own beliefs below. What I do not buy is the argument that every regulation is the beginning of the end of private gun ownership. In fact, I believe that the refusal of the NRA to give any consideration how laws and regulations might help reduce violent crime without impinging legitimate uses is already backfiring because it alienates so much of the public.

Please excuse the caps. I copied the proposals from the document's tablde of contents.)

Those that I think are commonsense are in black, those that I consider nonsense are in red, and those that warrant rational discussion are in blue.

EXTEND BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS TO ALL GUN SALES, INCLUDING ALL GUN SHOW SALES - In my opinion, no guns should be transferred by any means without a record of the transaction and an accompanying background check. This should include private sales, inheritances, gun shows, etc.

FULLY FUND THE NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT

CLOSE THE “TERROR GAP” TO DENY FIREARMS TO TERRORISTS - Given the number of errors and the lack of process controls over the so-called terrorist suspect lists, it would be wrong to use them as the basis for any official action.

PROHIBIT GUN POSSESSION BY VIOLENT MISDEMEANANTS AND PERSONS
CONVICTED OF VIOLENT ACTS AS JUVENILES - Too loose a standard

RESTRICT LARGE-VOLUME HANDGUN SALES TO REDUCE TRAFFICKING - I like the idea but think one gun per month is inappropriate. I'm also not sure how this can be enforced without a national database of purchases that is maintained in the background check database.

GIVE ATF STRONGER AND MORE FLEXIBLE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE
LAW AGAINST CORRUPT DEALERS

STRENGTHEN ATF’S ABILITY TO CRACK DOWN ON GUN DEALERS WHO SELL TO STRAW PURCHASERS

REQUIRE GUN OWNERS TO REPORT LOST OR STOLEN GUNS

REQUIRE LICENSED DEALERS TO ADOPT MINIMUM SECURITY SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT GUN THEFTS

REQUIRE LICENSED GUN MANUFACTURERS AND DEALERS TO PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS ON THEIR EMPLOYEES

PREVENT DEALERS FROM LIQUIDATING THEIR INVENTORY WITHOUT
BACKGROUND CHECKS AFTER THEIR LICENSES HAVE BEEN REVOKED

REQUIRE ALL NEW GUNS TO HAVE MICROSTAMPING CAPABILITY BY A DATE CERTAIN - I'm not sure this has benefits warranting the cost and think it probably classifies as nonsense. Microstamping ammunition, which is not part of this proposal, is clearly nonsense in my opinion.

REQUIRE DEALERS TO REPORT INFORMATION ABOUT GUNS SOLD TO MANUFACTURERS TO STREAMLINE TRACING OF CRIME GUNS - Should this be done through the manufacturers or should this information be preserved in the background check database. I'm not crazy abut the idea of any national database of ownership, but tend to believe that this may be needed.

RESTRICT MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS - This amounts to outlawing a weapon because you don't like its looks.

REQUIRE CONSUMER SAFETY STANDARDS AND CHILDPROOF SAFETY FEATURES FOR FIREARMS - I still have trouble with childproof caps on my medicines. I can just imagine trying to squeeze and turn the barrel of my gun while pulling the trigger and not shooting myself

REQUIRE MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR HANDGUN OWNERS AND IMPROVE RECORDKEEPING OF HANDGUN TRANSFERS

IMPROVE NATIONAL VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM DATA, AND RESTORE FIREARMS RESEARCH FUNDING FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

YardleyLabs
01-17-2009, 08:59 AM
And those that howl the loudest about the 1st amendment are the first to trash the 2nd amendment....

And vice versa.

badbullgator
01-17-2009, 09:28 AM
After reading the link to the Brady proposals, I find I agree with most and disagree strongly with many. I think the challenge to say which are "common sense" and which are nonsense is a fair one and I've summarized my own beliefs below. What I do not buy is the argument that every regulation is the beginning of the end of private gun ownership. In fact, I believe that the refusal of the NRA to give any consideration how laws and regulations might help reduce violent crime without impinging legitimate uses is already backfiring because it alienates so much of the public.

Please excuse the caps. I copied the proposals from the document's tablde of contents.)

Those that I think are commonsense are in black, those that I consider nonsense are in red, and those that warrant rational discussion are in blue.

EXTEND BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS TO ALL GUN SALES, INCLUDING ALL GUN SHOW SALES - In my opinion, no guns should be transferred by any means without a record of the transaction and an accompanying background check. This should include private sales, inheritances, gun shows, etc.

How will this help other than being a hassel and added $$$ from the law abiding gun owner? Why does the government need to know how many guns I own?

FULLY FUND THE NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT

I don't know what this is so no comment right now

CLOSE THE “TERROR GAP” TO DENY FIREARMS TO TERRORISTS - Given the number of errors and the lack of process controls over the so-called terrorist suspect lists, it would be wrong to use them as the basis for any official action.

This goes hand in hand with the first item, who is going to run the show and are they going to be able to do it right? I don't think so

PROHIBIT GUN POSSESSION BY VIOLENT MISDEMEANANTS AND PERSONS

Who decides this? Is it not already against the law for felony offenders to own guns? Are most acts of violence not felony crimes?

CONVICTED OF VIOLENT ACTS AS JUVENILES - Too loose a standard

RESTRICT LARGE-VOLUME HANDGUN SALES TO REDUCE TRAFFICKING - I like the idea but think one gun per month is inappropriate. I'm also not sure how this can be enforced without a national database of purchases that is maintained in the background check database.

National database......see above, who and how?

GIVE ATF STRONGER AND MORE FLEXIBLE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE
LAW AGAINST CORRUPT DEALERS

Not sure what "More FLEXABLE Authority" means, but I don't like the idea of "Flexable Authority" with any government agency way too broad

STRENGTHEN ATF’S ABILITY TO CRACK DOWN ON GUN DEALERS WHO SELL TO STRAW PURCHASERS

See above

REQUIRE GUN OWNERS TO REPORT LOST OR STOLEN GUNS

Again not sure this will help anything other than for the antis to make an argument that many stolen guns end up in the hands of criminals and therefore we should not be allowed to onw them becasue a bad guy might steal them. How many of you have ever actually lost a gun? This also goes back to the fact that the government has no need to know how many weapons I own.

REQUIRE LICENSED DEALERS TO ADOPT MINIMUM SECURITY SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT GUN THEFTS

This does not sound too bad, but need more details. It does give them an "in" to create standards that are too $$$$$ for dealers to adopt and do business much like the much talked about increase in ammo cost. If you can regulate the cost of doing business to a level that prohibits people from doing it that business goes away and yet you never had to "ban" that business

REQUIRE LICENSED GUN MANUFACTURERS AND DEALERS TO PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS ON THEIR EMPLOYEES

Not sure why this is an issue. Have their been cases where manufacturers have had employees do something that causes a need for greater background checks?

PREVENT DEALERS FROM LIQUIDATING THEIR INVENTORY WITHOUT
BACKGROUND CHECKS AFTER THEIR LICENSES HAVE BEEN REVOKED

REQUIRE ALL NEW GUNS TO HAVE MICROSTAMPING CAPABILITY BY A DATE CERTAIN - I'm not sure this has benefits warranting the cost and think it probably classifies as nonsense. Microstamping ammunition, which is not part of this proposal, is clearly nonsense in my opinion.

REQUIRE DEALERS TO REPORT INFORMATION ABOUT GUNS SOLD TO MANUFACTURERS TO STREAMLINE TRACING OF CRIME GUNS - Should this be done through the manufacturers or should this information be preserved in the background check database. I'm not crazy abut the idea of any national database of ownership, but tend to believe that this may be needed.

RESTRICT MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS - This amounts to outlawing a weapon because you don't like its looks.

REQUIRE CONSUMER SAFETY STANDARDS AND CHILDPROOF SAFETY FEATURES FOR FIREARMS - I still have trouble with childproof caps on my medicines. I can just imagine trying to squeeze and turn the barrel of my gun while pulling the trigger and not shooting myself

REQUIRE MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR HANDGUN OWNERS AND IMPROVE RECORDKEEPING OF HANDGUN TRANSFERS

IMPROVE NATIONAL VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM DATA, AND RESTORE FIREARMS RESEARCH FUNDING FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

Why?



Bold text added

YardleyLabs
01-17-2009, 11:34 AM
I believe that there are a couple reasonable objectives in a gun control program:
Require background checks to ensure that purchasers are not otherwise prohibited from gun ownership.
Identify and curb those who feed illegal gun channels by purchasing guns and reselling them to people precluded from ownership.The absence of background checks for gun shows and private transactions effectively undermines efforts to control purchases by individuals prohibited from ownership. The background check process has become sufficiently efficient and inexpensive that I see no reason not to have it performed in every transaction.

My impression is that the illegal gun market is fed primarily through a mix of straw purchasers buying guns in a legal or fraudulent manner from legitimate dealers and by theft of legally owned guns. Unfortunately, guns used in crimes may never have been reported stolen until the legal owner is asked about the gun, leading to the suspicion that the guns were sold rather than stolen. I think that it is likely that the market in illegal guns could be dramatically curbed by aggressively tracking the source of guns used in crimes and curbing practices that support illegal sales where this can be done without significant impact on legal purchasers and sellers. I believe some of the proposals would help.

I am personally troubled by the notion of a national database for guns sold since I am generally more frightened of the government than I am of any civilian criminal. However, I could be convinced to support such a database as part of a balanced program to control the illegal market.

tpaschal30
01-17-2009, 04:05 PM
I believe that there are a couple reasonable objectives in a gun control program:
Require background checks to ensure that purchasers are not otherwise prohibited from gun ownership.
Identify and curb those who feed illegal gun channels by purchasing guns and reselling them to people precluded from ownership.The absence of background checks for gun shows and private transactions effectively undermines efforts to control purchases by individuals prohibited from ownership. The background check process has become sufficiently efficient and inexpensive that I see no reason not to have it performed in every transaction.

My impression is that the illegal gun market is fed primarily through a mix of straw purchasers buying guns in a legal or fraudulent manner from legitimate dealers and by theft of legally owned guns. Unfortunately, guns used in crimes may never have been reported stolen until the legal owner is asked about the gun, leading to the suspicion that the guns were sold rather than stolen. I think that it is likely that the market in illegal guns could be dramatically curbed by aggressively tracking the source of guns used in crimes and curbing practices that support illegal sales where this can be done without significant impact on legal purchasers and sellers. I believe some of the proposals would help.

I am personally troubled by the notion of a national database for guns sold since I am generally more frightened of the government than I am of any civilian criminal. However, I could be convinced to support such a database as part of a balanced program to control the illegal market.

Much like the illegal drug market has been "controlled" perhaps? It will work just as well.

Patrick Johndrow
01-17-2009, 05:37 PM
Much like the illegal drug market has been "controlled" perhaps? It will work just as well.

Oh yeah...they really got a handle on that...gun control freaks make me laugh...they have NO idea what they are talking about.

I personally support the Constitution and all of its amendments ….not sure how anyone can pick a chose.

AmiableLabs
01-17-2009, 08:38 PM
Shouldn't this be moved to POTUS Place? :roll:

AmiableLabs
01-17-2009, 08:47 PM
The absence of background checks for gun shows and private transactions effectively undermines efforts to control purchases by individuals prohibited from ownership. The background check process has become sufficiently efficient and inexpensive that I see no reason not to have it performed in every transaction
When I was involved in the debate, the goal of those who wanted background checks at gun shows was to end gun shows. Gun shows are on weekends. The government offices required for doing the checks were closed on weekends.

It is already a crime for someone who would fail a background check to be trying to purchase a gun. So we offered the antis a compromise -- that the gun show dealers would call in the background checks on Monday, and if they failed, the buyer's name could be turned over to law enforcement. But the antigun legislators wouldn't have it. As I said, they want to end the gun shows. That is their goal.

YardleyLabs
01-17-2009, 08:56 PM
When I was involved in the debate, the goal of those who wanted background checks at gun shows was to end gun shows. Gun shows are on weekends. The government offices required for doing the checks were closed on weekends.

It is already a crime for someone who would fail a background check to be trying to purchase a gun. So we offered the antis a compromise -- that the gun show dealers would call in the background checks on Monday, and if they failed, the buyer's name could be turned over to law enforcement. But the antigun legislators wouldn't have it. As I said, they want to end the gun shows. That is their goal.

I agree that was their intent, but it's not mine. At this point I can go into a gun store on a Sunday and have a background check completed in a few minutes with a fee of $5. If that could make a significant dent in illegal gun trafficking it would be worth it.

badbullgator
01-18-2009, 06:57 AM
Much like the illegal drug market has been "controlled" perhaps? It will work just as well.

I just saw that the price for a gram of cocaine is $50-80 today and back in the 70'-80's it was $100+. If the war on drugs is working why have prices gone down and the avalibility of it gone up? Maybe we should outlaw guns, I would love to pay $100 for a Red Label O/U!

tpaschal30
01-18-2009, 04:18 PM
I just saw that the price for a gram of cocaine is $50-80 today and back in the 70'-80's it was $100+. If the war on drugs is working why have prices gone down and the avalibility of it gone up? Maybe we should outlaw guns, I would love to pay $100 for a Red Label O/U!

Prohibition worked great as well!!! That is the reason the NRA says "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns".

toddh
01-18-2009, 06:48 PM
If you don't plan on committing gun crimes, why do you worry about licensing?


You said it without even realizing it. Your "common sense" gun laws will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to curb crime. It just a burden on the law abiding citizen and a waste of tax dollars.




Obama has shown no interest in ending traditional gun ownership.

Do we really need to list all the anti-gun laws he has supported??? Go drink some more koolaid.

toddh
01-18-2009, 07:01 PM
Most of these proposals prey on the ignorance of the general public as to current firearms laws.

RESTRICT LARGE-VOLUME HANDGUN SALES TO REDUCE TRAFFICKING

What do you consider large-volume? The law-abiding citizen is already restricted to five hand guns at one purchase.

REQUIRE GUN OWNERS TO REPORT LOST OR STOLEN GUNS

Who in their right mind would not report a stolen gun??? If my house gets robbed, that's the first thing that will get reported. Of course, if I'm a criminal and I have an already illegal weapon stolen, it won't be reported.

Identify and curb those who feed illegal gun channels by purchasing guns and reselling them to people precluded from ownership.

Already illegal for someone to buy a gun for another person.

gun shows are on weekends. The government offices required for doing the checks were closed on weekends.

Used to be, but no more. The NICS telephone lined is operational 24-7, 363 days a year. The only days it is closed is Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day.

YardleyLabs
01-18-2009, 08:30 PM
Most of these proposals prey on the ignorance of the general public as to current firearms laws.

RESTRICT LARGE-VOLUME HANDGUN SALES TO REDUCE TRAFFICKING

What do you consider large-volume? The law-abiding citizen is already restricted to five hand guns at one purchase.

Is that a Federal limit or a state one. I am not aware of any limit in Pennsylvania. However, I've never purchased more than three at one time myself. I found a 2007 reference indicating there was no Federal limitation and only a coupld of states that had imposed limits on purchases within a specified period of time. When Tennessee was a dry state, my parents would go to Virginia to buy liqur to transport (illegally) back to their home in TN. The Virginia state stores only permitted you to buy five bottles of liquor. However, it was not worth it to drive that distance for only five bottles. Instead, my parents would go from liquor store to liquor. Each would go in individualy and buy five bottles and then the other would buy another five before we headed to the next store. By the time we returned home, the trunk was filled and my parents' (and their friends') needs were met for a year. Had there been a limit linked to a database that could tell evrything they had purchased, they never would have made the trip. I suspect illegal gun sales are similar. When I lived in NYC, the normal pattern was an individual or a couple of guys who would go to one of the easy purchase states. They would visit several stores and buy multiple gins at each, returning to the City with 50-100 guns. They migt have used a valid or forged drivers license. However, the profit depended on managing sme level of volume. A process that was effective at slowing down purchases could be an effective deterrent by changing the economics of the process.


REQUIRE GUN OWNERS TO REPORT LOST OR STOLEN GUNS

Who in their right mind would not report a stolen gun??? If my house gets robbed, that's the first thing that will get reported. Of course, if I'm a criminal and I have an already illegal weapon stolen, it won't be reported.
I think the issue is a gun dealer who purchased weapons to resell illegally. When they are questioned about a gun recovered in a crime they simply say it must have been stolen but they hadn't noticed.


Identify and curb those who feed illegal gun channels by purchasing guns and reselling them to people precluded from ownership.

Already illegal for someone to buy a gun for another person.

This is true in Pennsylvania. i don't know about other states.


gun shows are on weekends. The government offices required for doing the checks were closed on weekends.

Used to be, but no more. The NICS telephone lined is operational 24-7, 363 days a year. The only days it is closed is Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day.
My point exactly. Why should there be a gun show exemption allowing guns to be sold without a background check?

badbullgator
01-19-2009, 06:36 AM
How exactly does requiring reporting of a stolen gun help STOP any gun crime? It does not PERIOD. It only records that they were stolen. I don’t buy the gun dealers selling them illegally and then saying they were stolen if they get used in a crime. There may well be a few crooked dealers that may try this but I truly doubt it is common place and once again they are breaking laws in the first place by selling them illegally. There are already laws in place….ENFORCE THEM don’t make new ones that will not be enforced as well. To use the drug example again if your caught with a pound of pot, what good does it do to charge the person with “paraphernalia” for having a pack of rolling papers?

Identify and curb those who feed illegal gun channels by purchasing guns and reselling them to people precluded from ownership.

This is true in Florida and I am pretty sure everywhere in the nation. This is not common sense this is redundancy again putting another law in effect where one already exist. ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. More GOVERNMENT REGULATION (i.e. laws) do no good unless they are enforced and since we already have more than enough laws that cover all of these proposals this is unnecessary and just another way to bloat the government.

As far as gun shows...I have not bought a gun at one in some time, but the last time I did you either had to have a carry permit OR they did a backgorund check by phone AND if it was a handgun you still had to wait 3 days per Florida law to pick it up and usually the vendor would ship it to you after the three day wait was over.

pat addis
01-19-2009, 08:21 AM
several years ago i had a hand gun stolen i knew who did it turned his name in.nothing happened they didn't even seem too worried about it.about a year later a state investagator was in a pawn shop rather than take the gun the pawn shop owner used it to commit a murder.the police arrested him and he got convicted but the person who stole the gun got off.

zeus3925
01-19-2009, 11:10 AM
I just saw that the price for a gram of cocaine is $50-80 today and back in the 70'-80's it was $100+. If the war on drugs is working why have prices gone down and the avalibility of it gone up? Maybe we should outlaw guns, I would love to pay $100 for a Red Label O/U!

I think those who fear a new prohibition if tough, draconian laws are promulgated are essentially correct. If Pakistanis can turn out perfectly good AK-47's out of scrap rebar with a foot treadle milling machine, surely the underworld can also turn out firearms with computer driven machinery as well. The chances of them having traceable serial numbers are not good.

The cost of setting up and running a federal bureaucracy will be on the back of all of us. It will also lead to a criminalization of otherwise innocent people.

But, there seems to be an unwillingness to consider approachs of dealing with the idiot-behind-the-gun syndrome. Both sides of this issue seem to be bent at venting their respective wrath and bile at each other without looking at how else to to approach the problem. The politicians just love it because the way to get votes is to side with one faction or the other.

duckheads
01-20-2009, 09:00 AM
i see no one that is for more gun control can answer the simple question about chicago? there is really no need to debate it further. chicago is a prime example of how gun prohibiton does not work.

Illinois Bob
01-20-2009, 09:17 AM
i see no one that is for more gun control can answer the simple question about chicago? there is really no need to debate it further. chicago is a prime example of how gun prohibiton does not work.

Chicago is the perfect example.Over 500 murders last year without a legal gun inside city limits.Mayor Daley has said that if it was up to him,guns would be outlawed everywhere.He's a moron.He doesn't get it.

toddh
01-20-2009, 09:18 AM
Is that a Federal limit or a state one.

Federal. Some states are more restrictive than others.


This is true in Pennsylvania. i don't know about other states.

Another federal law. It's called a "straw purchase." Somebody else in this thread already addressed this.



Why should there be a gun show exemption allowing guns to be sold without a background check?

There isn't! That's another media and anti-gun myth. Every dealer at a gun show has to go through the NICS process before transferring a gun to a buyer.

zeus3925
01-20-2009, 11:54 AM
Federal. Some states are more restrictive than othe


Another federal law. It's called a "straw purchase." Somebody else in this thread already addressed this.



There is no check for a straw purchaser in MN at least. Last fall I bought a semi auto shotgun for my son as a birthday present. He was with me at the store. He picked the gun and we made it plain to the sales staff that he was the recipient of the gun. To my surprise I was the one that had to the background check as I was providing the cash for the purchase.

badbullgator
01-20-2009, 12:02 PM
There is no check for a straw purchaser in MN at least. Last fall I bought a semi auto shotgun for my son as a birthday present. He was with me at the store. He picked the gun and we made it plain to the sales staff that he was the recipient of the gun. To my surprise I was the one that had to the background check as I was providing the cash for the purchase.


I would suggest then that the people who sold the gun to you broke the law, although since it was for your son and he was a minor (I assume) they let it pass. There are already laws in place regarding this....they did not follow them and nobody enforced it. What good would another law do to change this is it is enforced equally as the current one?

zeus3925
01-20-2009, 12:15 PM
I would suggest then that the people who sold the gun to you broke the law, although since it was for your son and he was a minor (I assume) they let it pass. There are already laws in place regarding this....they did not follow them and nobody enforced it. What good would another law do to change this is it is enforced equally as the current one?

Nope, my son was celebrating his 40th. (God that makes me feel old!)

badbullgator
01-20-2009, 12:18 PM
Nope, my son was celebrating his 40th. (God that makes me feel old!)


Then the people selling you the gun broke the law as did you by buying a gun for someone else to avoid a background check...
Laws only stand a chance of working if they are enforced and obeyed. I am not sure about there but here the form you must fill out specifically ask if you are buying it for someone else. Answer yes and they will not sell it to you. Answer no falsely and you have broken the law. It took me over two hours to buy 4 single shot shotguns for our club to use as popper guns becasue of this. I answered that they were not for me personally and that caused a whole big stink before the state finally gave the go ahead

Tsangster
01-20-2009, 12:53 PM
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Copied from another forum:

"That question is about a 'straw purchase': A person, who is eligible to purchase a gun, buys a gun at the direction and with the money for a person who is ineligible to purchase or own a gun.

You, eligible to do so, are buying a gun with your money, at no one elses direction. Once the transaction is completed it's your property to do with as you will."

Also:

"Second issue (and the original question), can he purchase a gun for his dad. The answer (according to the examples provided by the BATF) is yes, as long as he (the son) is the purchaser of the gun, is not receiving any payment from someone else (the dad), and the gun is to be given as a gift.

See Form 4473

Read question 12a on page one, then read the Important Notice 1 on page three."

badbullgator
01-20-2009, 01:05 PM
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Copied from another forum:

"That question is about a 'straw purchase': A person, who is eligible to purchase a gun, buys a gun at the direction and with the money for a person who is ineligible to purchase or own a gun.

You, eligible to do so, are buying a gun with your money, at no one elses direction. Once the transaction is completed it's your property to do with as you will."

Also:

"Second issue (and the original question), can he purchase a gun for his dad. The answer (according to the examples provided by the BATF) is yes, as long as he (the son) is the purchaser of the gun, is not receiving any payment from someone else (the dad), and the gun is to be given as a gift.

See Form 4473

Read question 12a on page one, then read the Important Notice 1 on page three."

I am Ok with that in this case, BUT if they have the same forms as we do AND he clearly stated he was buying it for someone else while in the store, the people in the store had really no option but to not sell him the gun. Think about it, IF he said I am buying this gun for this guy standing next to me as he describes (son or otherwise, I would think the store would have the obligation to say NO. Granted there is nothing illegal about buying a gun for someone , who can legally own a gun in the first place, but in the incident described it is MHO that the store should have said no becasue how do they know the person standing next to him his is son or if he can legally own a gun? I am just saying that from my experiance here you would not get away with that.

zeus3925
01-20-2009, 01:19 PM
I am Ok with that in this case, BUT if they have the same forms as we do AND he clearly stated he was buying it for someone else while in the store, the people in the store had really no option but to not sell him the gun. Think about it, IF he said I am buying this gun for this guy standing next to me as he describes (son or otherwise, I would think the store would have the obligation to say NO. Granted there is nothing illegal about buying a gun for someone , who can legally own a gun in the first place, but in the incident described it is MHO that the store should have said no becasue how do they know the person standing next to him his is son or if he can legally own a gun? I am just saying that from my experiance here you would not get away with that.


I am as mystified as you are. I bought the gun at a big national chain outlet. Their explanation was since I was providing the funds, I was the owner of record. What I did with it when I walked out the door was my responsibility. The salesman walked me to the door, handed me the gun and I in turn in front of him handed it to my son and said,"Happy Birthday and enjoy. Let's go hunting tomorrow."

They never questioned my son's right to possess a firearm or asked for his ID.

badbullgator
01-20-2009, 02:06 PM
I am as mystified as you are. I bought the gun at a big national chain outlet. Their explanation was since I was providing the funds, I was the owner of record. What I did with it when I walked out the door was my responsibility. The salesman walked me to the door, handed me the gun and I in turn in front of him handed it to my son and said,"Happy Birthday and enjoy. Let's go hunting tomorrow."

They never questioned my son's right to possess a firearm or asked for his ID.


While I agree that you can do this as a gift, I would have to think it is not supposed to work like that. Granted there is nothing stopping you from going in alone and coming out and giving it to him. Like I said in Florida that would not fly...of course there is always someone who woulld I am sure but our state is pretty strict and because of it we have pretty liberal gun laws (or at least laws that favor the gun owner)

toddh
01-26-2009, 09:26 PM
There is no check for a straw purchaser in MN at least. Last fall I bought a semi auto shotgun for my son as a birthday present. He was with me at the store. He picked the gun and we made it plain to the sales staff that he was the recipient of the gun. To my surprise I was the one that had to the background check as I was providing the cash for the purchase.


As stated by others, the clerk who sold you the gun did so illegally. A dealer cannot sell you a gun knowing that the gun is for someone else. The clerk was lucky there wasn't an ATF agent standing there.

What you do with the gun when you get home is up to you.